History of the Liberal Party by Dr John Hewson (0)
Posted 30 December, 2007 in Humour, Politics
Sure it’s tongue-in-cheek. But it tells you pretty much everything you need to know!
Why I’m an Objectivst: Objectivists and service (2)
Posted 28 December, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary
I’m an Objectivist because I make all my decisions based solely on reason and empirical observation of the world in which I live, and I hold human life as the only yardstick of value.
But I’m also an Objectivist because I want to live a satisfying existence, surrounded by beauty and being delighted at every turn. This is my definition of the good life, and my formula for happiness.
Even if I couldn’t live this type of life I’d still live by reason alone; it would make no sense to do otherwise. But it makes me wonder why anyone, let alone (relatively) free and educated people, would choose to live according to religion, environmental mysticism, collectivism or self-sacrifice to the point of their own detriment. Why would someone choose to hold unhappiness and subservience as their personal values? My only explanation is that they haven’t worked out what is really going on in the world. I guess there is a lot of bullshit out there to confuse the ‘average punter’.
I am often challenged by friends, both religious and non-religious, who suggest that individualism can’t be a way to happiness, that there are values higher than yourself that should be served. Having spent most of my working life in military service I attempt to answer their challenge by going on the offensive: how can I, a person who holds my own happiness as my moral purpose, serve in the military where my life could potentially be put at risk and therefore everything I value be potentially destroyed? I’d say this question was answered quite effectively by John Stuart Mill*:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Living boldly, efficaciously and pursuing your own happiness without reservation is not a timid exercise. Once you identify the values necessary for human happiness they need to be pursued and upheld, and this requires effort and risk. So yes, there are values that I would defend at risk to myself, that I would ’serve’, you might say. However, the only values that I could ’serve’ without compromising my morals would be ones that could be shown through reason to uphold the value of human life. Or more simply, keep your religious mysticism, collectivist idealism and statist tyranny to yourself, because I’ll fight against it but never for it.
Any other twist on ’service’ is a violation of these values and would compromise my morality. As Ayn Rand herself said:
It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
* This quote was put on a plaque above the Cadets Bar at the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1996, as a gift from the Commanding Officer (LTCOL S. Ellis) who was resigning. I wonder if it’s still there.
Quote of the day (1)
Posted 27 December, 2007 in Humour, Politics
Found on a diesel engine performance site, of all places:
A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something right!
A half-truth, I suppose.
Taxation should be considered as a fee paid for services rendered. The problem people like me have with taxation is that:
1. You have no choice whether you are going to buy the services or not;
2. You don’t get sent a bill based on what you consume; the guv’mint takes a sliding percentage of what you earn under threat of force and then skims, as surreptitiously as possible, whatever transactions you make with the remaining funds - mafia extortion style; and
3. Then they give some of your own money back to you and behave like they’re giving you something bought with wealth they’ve created themselves.
Lefties and the ‘means of production’ (0)
Posted 17 December, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary, Politics
Most right-wing people who have sniffed around the political fringes know that hardcore lefties, and especially anarchists, have some sort of hang up about the ‘means of production’ in that they are obsessed with not having an individual person or entity controlling this sacred cow. They also know this strange obsession generates an undercurrent that drives a lot of left-wing ‘logic’.
As with so much left-wing logic there’s a half-truth that is extrapolated into a lie. The Great Unwashed have correctly identified the power source that allows human quality-of-life to be developed to a point that makes it enjoyable and satisfying; it’s called ‘production’ i.e. employment or enterprise.
But, in true lefty form, they then extrapolate this into a fantasy. They define ownership of ‘production’ to be the ownership of a factory, or a farm, or a business. Therefore, they conclude the ownership of ‘production’ is kept in the public interest by making sure these things are public property i.e. owned by the state for lefties and effectively owned by nobody for anarchists. Kill the bosses, start a commune and all that.
This is a fantasy because the ‘means of production’ has very little to do with the ownership of a building, or a piece of land, or having employees. These things are important, but in themselves they do not constitute ‘production’. The clincher that they overlook is the fact that ‘production’ comes from the genius of the producer. The intellect of the guy/girl who puts it all together and makes it happen is the primary reason that ‘production’ occurs.
Now lefties and anarchists can’t take a line that any individual is owned by the state, or by others, even if they are the ‘means of production’. This would make them look silly and expose the pathetic contradictions in their philosophies. So they pretend that ‘production’ rests with ownership of an inanimate object like the factory, farm or business, and definitely can’t be due to the genius of any particular individual.
But while pretending this is the case they actually do support the ownership of the productive individuals by the state. You only need to look at what lefties want done to the Richard Pratts or the (late) Kerry Packers. They want special restrictions put on these people so they are made to produce, so everyone else who doesn’t produce can consume. They effectively support less freedom for these people because they are productive.
In other words, our left-wing and anarchist friends get comfortable with the contradictions in their beliefs, and basically ignore them, even if this means taking a false view of reality that is essentially destructive to the whole community they claim to be protecting and nurturing.